are you saying the whites were 'more' evil than the NA? because the NA murdered and raped and TORTURED!! they just didn't have the technology to carry on total war

Don't put words in my mouth. I know that the native americans did heinous acts, but the key difference is that white people tried to commit not only basic genocide, but cultural genocide too. Entire generations of children were stolen from their reservations and "americanized"against their will, which is still happening in some parts of the country today. The BS native americans have to deal with is still going on, that's the key distinction.

Yeah, I really don't like these kinds of threads because invariably the person who started them comes off like they think the Native-Americans were uniquely evil rather than being like the rest of the human race and that since they weren't perfect angels that justifies what has been done to them and what is still being done to them. Basically, stuff like this always comes across as a very clumsy way of shouting about the glories of Western imperialism or whatever.

In commenting on the OP's question you do know that not all native tribes were agressive. Some had no interest in war unless provoked.

In the Arawakan family of natives the Tainos (some think they should not be included in Arawakan family) of the Caribbean and Chanes of southeastern Bolivia would be an example. Tainos and Chanes fought when they had too but they were not warmongers.

The following quote is on the Chane but which I would say also goes for the Tainos.

The Puri are very pacifical
and the portuguese killed them for nothing

Quote:

Does not know a single white killed by a Puri. When white came up in the woods to harvest medicinal plant ipecac, to find the puris, they put themselves on the run, risking stealthily grab for their uses, the tools of whites. The very name "puri" meant, in their language, we meek ​​or timid